i5-13400F vs i3-2310M
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-2310M by a whopping 1957% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2630 | 421 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 55.20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.08 | 23.06 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $225 | $196 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 21 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 149 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 85C (PGA); 100C (BGA) | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 624 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1023,PPGA988 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.77 | 15.84 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 10 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
i3-2310M has 85.7% lower power consumption.
i5-13400F, on the other hand, has a 1957.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and 400% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
The Core i5-13400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-2310M in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i3-2310M is a notebook processor while Core i5-13400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-2310M and Core i5-13400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
